Tauscher: ‘A Lot Has Happened Since 1993,’ Time Is Right To Repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Tauscher: ‘A Lot Has Happened Since 1993,’ Time Is Right To Repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Earlier today, Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) proposed repealing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which prohibits gay men and women from serving openly. Speaking at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, Tauscher said that “there is one last, final barrier that we need to tear down.” “We need to end the `Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ policy,” she said.
In an interview with ThinkProgress after her speech, Tauscher responded to skeptics who think that working to repeal the ban is a “knife fight” that “no president wants to get into,” saying that “times have changed dramatically” and that “a lot has happened since 1993,” when the policy was enacted:
TAUSCHER: So, I think that there’s, a lot has happened since 1993 and I think that even though the atmospherics look the same, a brand new president, you know, at a time when the Republicans are critical of whatever he’s doing, I think that what our job is is to inform people about the current state of affairs. And that is that 75 percent of the American people believe that this is the wrong policy. And that we have a lot of people behind us. And I think Colin Powell, you know that we know that Colin Powell has changed his mind, so I think if we put our package together of information, we do a good job of doing that, I think that people will move along with it.
We asked Tauscher if her legislation would be a “test” for Republicans like Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), who said on ABC yesterday that “the Republican Party has to return to be one of inclusion, not exclusion.” Tauscher responded that “they’re tested every day,” but that she’s “not sure that they’re doing well.” She added that they’re locked in by their “their very rigid far right” who push arguments that “look more like bigotry and fearmongering.” Watch it:
Tauscher added that she believes proponents of the repeal have “amassed a critical argument about not only the benefits for the American people, just on the moral and civil rights issues, but also the benefits for our military to have more people that are absolutely qualified for every reason other than currently their sexual orientation wanting to serve.” “I think that it puts us in good stead with fair minded people around the world that have already changed their policy,” said Tauscher.
Transcript:
THINK PROGRESS: There seems to be a conventional wisdom that this is going to be a very tough political fight. For instance, the Politico in writing up your plans to introduce legislation, described it as a “knife fight” that “no president wants to get into.” But the popularity of repealing the ban has increased significantly since the early nineties. Why do you think, do you think, why do you think there’s such this disconnect between the conventional wisdom in Washington and the opinions of the American people?
TAUSCHER: Well, I think that people still smart from what happened in 1993 and that President Clinton, the atmospherics for 2009 and 1993 are very similar. A brand new president, a Democratic president after a long time of Republican rule. Lots of opposition from the far right religious community. And, you know, this is one of those hot button issues. But I do think you’re right. I think that times have changed dramatically. Back in 1993, the military leadership did not support this. Colin Powell was the physical embodiment of opposition and he had a tremendous sway in the country and among his colleagues in the military. Fifty percent of the American people were for it and the other 50 percent were against it, so it was an evenly split country. And we didn’t have the progress that we have with our allies. We now have 26 countries, our most prized allies, you know, England, Israel, France, Germany — some of our biggest allies in the world all have gotten rid of a policy like this and have gays and lesbians serving openly. So, I think that there’s, a lot has happened since 1993 and I think that even though the atmospherics look the same, a brand new president, you know, at a time when the Republicans are critical of whatever he’s doing, I think that what our job is is to inform people about the current state of affairs. And that is that 75 percent of the American people believe that this is the wrong policy. And that we have a lot of people behind us. And I think Colin Powell, you know that we know that Colin Powell has changed his mind, so I think if we put our package together of information, we do a good job of doing that, I think that people will move along with it.
THINK PROGRESS: On ABC’s This Week yesterday, Congressman Eric Cantor said that “there is no question the Republican Party has to return to be one of inclusion, not exclusion.” Do you think that your legislation and other moves to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will be a test for that idea among the House Republicans and other conservatives?
TAUSCHER: I think they’re tested every day and I’m not sure that they’re doing well. I think that it is very unlikely, although we would welcome their support, it’s very unlikely that many of them will support us. You know, this is still for their very rigid far right, a hot button issue. And I think they don’t want to be informed by the facts. They certainly don’t want to deal with what I believe is one of the last civil rights issues that we have to fix in this country. And, I’m sorry that they’re on that side, I think that those are arguments that are without fact-based and are, look more like bigotry and fearmongering. They will make those arguments and we have to deal with them. But I think that we have amassed a critical argument about not only the benefits for the American people, just on the moral and civil rights issues, but also the benefits for our military to have more people that are absolutely qualified for every reason other than currently their sexual orientation wanting to serve. And I think that it puts us in good stead with fair minded people around the world that have already changed their policy.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
All they have to do to make this a slam dunk is mention the fact that military arabic translators have been fired for being gay.
Lack of communication can get our soldiers killed.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:37 amI agree. It’s time to end DADT.
I was thrilled when Bill Clinton came into office and wanted to end the military ban against gays, because I believed that kind of discrimination to be senseless. However, Clinton met with such resistance to the idea that he decided the political capital it would cost wasn’t worth it, and settled for the DADT compromise. Gays could still serve, but only in the closet.
Even though DADT wasn’t really adequate, it was a foot in the door. We now know that gays DO serve, and they serve as well as straights do. And the military hasn’t fallen apart as a result. Surely 16 years of this is an acceptable and convincing trial. Now, can we PLEASE treat our gay soldiers as real people? It’s time.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:38 amDon’t ask Don’t tell was definitely a step forward for its time. Clinton did OK half-stepping it considering the ourpouring of OH NOES from the right.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:39 amTauscher: ‘A Lot Has Happened Since 1993,’ Time Is Right To Repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell »
– - No, the time is not right. The GOP is reeling and imploding. The last thing Democrats should do is get into a culture war that the GOP can use as a rallying theme and a fund-raising bonanza.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:40 amThat’s one of the tragic ironies of this whole don’t ask don’t tell fiasco.
We compromised our national security by getting rid of arabic translators simply because they were gay.
Are we more afraid of another 9/11 or of having to share a foxhole with someone who might be gay?
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:41 amalthough i would like to agree with Tausher and i find it ridiculous that anyone should have to try to conceal who they are in anyway if they are serving the greater good of this country i am not so sure i agree completely.
given the recent persecution of atheists in the military and couple that with the overwhelming number of sexual assaults against female members of the military and it seems like it might not be the safest environment in which to be openly homosexual.
it is unfortunate that our military remains so indoctrinated with fundamentalism
these changes are something we should always be striving for, but i’m not so sure its neccesarily safe for these steps to be taken yet.
if i were a gay man in the military i’d keep my mouth shut, it’d just make my life in the military a whole lot easier.
unfortunately, this is the world we live in.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:43 am…yeah…i was just thinking of that too. I don’t recall WHY the republicans were able to weasel back into congress in 94. Could anyone more smarterer than me provide a history leasson?
Was ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ a stupid resonant wedge issue in 1994?
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:45 amI have to disagree. As a veteran that served during the ’90’s under Clinton, I can assure you that the military is not ready for Gays to openly serve regardless if whether or not members of the public and in Congress believe otherwise. I believe it will cause an unnecessary distraction that military personnel just can’t afford to deal with considering the nature of their work.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:45 amI don’t know whether Im more afraid of the red team making gains in 2010 using the ‘queer/fear’ card
or
the blue team compromising their principles to keep the moral midgets quiet for the sake of holding onto power.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:47 am…oh god…
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:49 am#7: Was ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ a stupid resonant wedge issue in 1994?
– - Absolutely. It was played by Newt, et al as inconsistent with family values. Let’s not go there right now.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:49 amcrap. well here’s to hoping that if they do decide to go there the times have changed enough in the past 15 years. Barring that, maybe Limbaugh will come out of the closet and rail against liberals lack of tolerance…
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:52 amdeebaser Says:
——————————————————————————–
RaptureReady Says:
Test.
…oh god…
Thank you, deebaser, that was worth several minutes of chuckling…
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:59 amEqual rights! If gay folks want to serve in the military and are qualified, they should serve, and God bless them for doing so.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:00 amEnding DADT…a belated, but honorable step towards equality.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:01 am- – No, the time is not right.
When will the time be right?
Was it ever the right time in history for any changes of this kind? Emancipation, suffrage, interracial marriage, civil rights?
As a gay many who has known many gays in the military in my lifetime, it was always explained to me as a “open secret”. Doing away with DODT and replacing it with a policy that allows for gays and lesbians to serve open takes away the power of those who find it morally whatever to make a trouble for those who are gay and choose to serve their country.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:02 amOf course the GOP isn’t ready – they’re still struggling with their own philosophy (and policy) of “Don’t Question/Don’t Think”.
Their lil’ heads might implode if we put too much on their table to consider.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:07 amWell, I was in combat arms (Tanker) and I can assure you that the vast majority of people I served with and worked very closely with would have had very mixed feelings about Gays serving openly. It would be an enormous distraction and could present some very awkward situations. Example: What would the solution be for community showers? Should straight members have to be concerned with being around Gay members in the showers? Also, barracks rooms are typically shared by 4 or more members. You don’t think this would create any difficult situations?
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:07 amDODT should have been DADT…sorry.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:09 amDr. Hussein Matt Says:
My military experience was the same as yours. And I served 1972-1980 – is it possible people were more enlightened then?
Seems doubtful but I never saw the kind of bigotry and hatred towards gays I do now.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:10 amProgressVet Says:
I believe it will cause an unnecessary distraction that military personnel just can’t afford to deal with considering the nature of their work.
Why? Given the nature of the job, wouldn’t it be easier to focus on the task at hand rather than whether or not the person next to you is gay or not? Doesn’t seem to make sense.
Furthermore, just because DADT is lifted does that mean gays and lesbians will go around declaring their sexuality at any opportunity? Who does that?
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:11 amI coulda sworn I saw several surveys indicating the soldiers were fine with serving along side gays…
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:12 amHmmm. Darlyy?
RaptureReady Says:
No, no, no. This would be a conflict of personal interest. The last thing you want is another soldier hitting on you on liberty, during war.
Why would they do that? Do you have gay men or lesbians hit on you all the time? I think most gay and lesbian people use more discretion in real life than you realize. But then again, I’m sure you have your stock characterizations of teh gay that you could not possibly shake.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:13 amThe last thing you want is another soldier hitting on you on liberty, during war.
Why do you wingnuts obsess on what others do with their genitals?
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:14 amRaptureReady Says:
No, no, no. This would be a conflict of personal interest. The last thing you want is another soldier hitting on you on liberty, during war. Their sole purpose is to win military missions.
Can I clear this up for you? Contrary to somewhat popular belief among Rethugs, not all gays are attracted to all the other members of their same sex. Yeesh. Don’t flatter yourselves.
Of course, self-flattery does seem to be a particularly (R) kind of quality.
And…for the record, ALL the gays that I’ve known in the military were there to SERVE – to do their part in “winning military missions” if that was the task at hand, so to speak.
If they wanted to pick up a trick, they could just go to the next RNC convention.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:14 amOf course there are gay men and women serving in the military today, and of course it’s an “open secret” but the point is the policy/rule/regulation/law that makes it possible for any service member to be dismissed or denied entry simply on the basis that he/she is homosexual is wrong and needs to be repealed.
I agree that I wish this didn’t need to be made an issue at this time because of the power of the homophobes with their rallying cry, but if President Obama et al won’t fight for equal rights for all Americans, who will and when?
PEACE
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:14 amMany other countries already allow gays to serve openly in their military. When our soldiers are deployed (Afghanistan, Iraq, Djibouti), they are co-located with these soldiers. They share the same tents and facilities. Our soldiers already serve right alongside openly gay soldiers – just not from our country. Our soldiers also serve alongside civilian contractors who are not held to any standard regarding sexual orientation. I served over a year in Baghdad and I don’t see the repeal of DADT being a problem at all.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:15 amProgressVet Says
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:45 am
I have to disagree. As a veteran that served during the ’90’s under Clinton, I can assure you that the military is not ready for Gays to openly serve regardless if whether or not members of the public and in Congress believe otherwise. I believe it will cause an unnecessary distraction that military personnel just can’t afford to deal with considering the nature of their work.
____________________________________________________________
And there were many who said that about racial integration of the military in 1948. There will always be those who will use the “distraction” excuse for their own fears and prejudices.
I served in the Navy back in the 70’s — a time when being homosexual in the military was considered to be as grave a threat to combat readiness as being a communist mole. Yet gays were there, as they are everywhere. I knew who they were, but they were far less of a “distraction” than the straight males who insisted on trying to feel me up in photolab darkrooms.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:15 amTweedster Says:
But then again, I’m sure you have your stock characterizations of teh gay that you could not possibly shake.
Has Daryls comment been deleted already?
Also, I have been wondering about this for a while: What is the meaning of “teh” gay? I only see it at TP, I figure it must have a cultural signifigance but can’t figure it out.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:16 amTrajan75 IQ Says:
Daryll:
are you one of the filthy sinful Odomites?
LOL – spot on!!! TP is infested with Odomites…
Spencer’s mom, well put as usual.
BTW – sorry for the link, but it is laughable how pathetic that site is…paging Mr Philby?
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:17 amPersonally, I think Tauscher has an overt reason to focus on this at this time. It is to deflect on her coziness with the banks receiving bailout money. As far as gay’s in the military; they wer there when I was in the Navy in the early 50’s and in probably every branch from the Green Mountain Boys to the present. Those serving with them know who they are and I’m betting it is the exception for the gay soldier, sailor or Marine who causes the problem. It is usually the homophobe.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:19 amRaptureReady Says:
No, no, no. This would be a conflict of personal interest. The last thing you want is another soldier hitting on you on liberty, during war. Their sole purpose is to win military missions.
#####
This already happens. A lot. Female soldiers hit on male soldiers, male soldiers hit on female soldiers, and a lot of females hit on each other. While the upper brass may punish gays, they often turn a blind eye to lesbians. And then you have the British and Australian troops, who allow soldiers to serve openly gay, who share the same living facilities as the American soldiers.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:19 amRaptureReady Says
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:15 am
If a soldier has a relationship with multiple women, does that mean that he must ensure that the military recognizes his so called wives? NO!
_____________________________________________________________
HUH??? I suspect you hit the wrong button on the drivel machine. Recognition of a soldier’s partners — gay OR straight OR multiple — isn’t the topic here.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:21 amIf a soldier has a relationship with multiple women, does that mean that he must ensure that the military recognizes his so called wives? NO!
Rupture> WTF? You call this an argument?
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:21 amIf I slept with your wife would you recognize me as your brother?
RaptureReady Says:
There is a reason why male and females are separated during boot-camp. You should not have to worry about being hit on within 12 weeks for lack of sexual interaction with others.
####
Hey genius, males and females are not separated at any time during their service – they have seperate barracks, but they intermingle all the time. I shared tents with female soldiers in Iraq. So you are once again talking about something you know nothing about.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:22 amKeltoi at Night Says
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:16 am
Also, I have been wondering about this for a while: What is the meaning of “teh” gay? I only see it at TP, I figure it must have a cultural signifigance but can’t figure it out.
__________________________________________________________
Try this link:
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:28 amhttp://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Teh+Gay
The point isn’t that being gay is contagious and straight men should not worry about showering with gay men for fear of becoming gay themselves. Does the military allow men to shower with women? No, and it’s not because the men don’t want to, it’s because the women would most certainly object. Well, as a straight man, I would object to sharing a shower with a gay man. I may have showered with many gay military members, but I can assure you that not knowing that they were gay made it a non-issue. Also, I draw the line at getting naked in front of gays, but other men may not be as tolerant and may draw the line much earlier, such as sharing a room or shelter half with someone who is gay. I don’t trust that the tolerance level is where it needs to be to allow gays to serve openly without causing unnecessary distractions and problems when the mission is so critical and in most cases life-threatening.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:30 amBadmoodman Says:
- – No, the time is not right. The GOP is reeling and imploding. The last thing Democrats should do is get into a culture war that the GOP can use as a rallying theme and a fund-raising bonanza.
I respectfully disagree. By not changing the policy now for this reason, in effect, gives the GOP more power than it actually has to influence policy.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:30 amIf they do fight it, it will put them on the wrong side of 75% of Americans who support the change. Of course the GOP seems to be able to appeal to only 25% of the people anyway, so they should be used to it.
RaptureReady Says
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:19 am
There is a reason why male and females are separated during boot-camp. You should not have to worry about being hit on within 12 weeks for lack of sexual interaction with others.
_____________________________________________________________
Back in the dark ages when I served, men and women were indeed separated during basic training, but it had far less to do with sex than it did with their training being different. Because women were not permitted in anything resembling a combat role, they didn’t go through combat training.
Today, women are still technically barred from combat duty (although there are plenty of women serving who will tell you that what they do sure looks an awful lot like combat), but they receive combat training now. In fact, all their basic training is the same as for men, and both genders are now trained together.
Try to keep up.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:32 amI think the main problem you have is that you have no tolerance level for homosexuality in any form. That’s a problem you need to deal with.
As the mother of a gay man, I can promise you that if he ever had to deal with a life threatening crisis, he wouldn’t be thinking about said crisis with his di(k hanging about.
Sheesh, you people make me sick. Get over it.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:35 amKeltoi at Night Says:
Tweedster Says:
But then again, I’m sure you have your stock characterizations of teh gay that you could not possibly shake.
Has Daryls comment been deleted already?
Also, I have been wondering about this for a while: What is the meaning of “teh” gay? I only see it at TP, I figure it must have a cultural signifigance but can’t figure it out.
It is basically just to imply the ignorance of the nutjobs who think they might catch teh gay if it unleashed in the form of basic human rights for gays and lesbians.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:38 amTrajan75 IQ Says:
Tweedster Says:
That site was made for only one reason, to provide links for other Eric Odom Circle Jerk Blogs to feed from.
True true…
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:39 amProgVet:
I don’t trust that the tolerance level is where it needs to be to allow gays to serve openly without causing unnecessary distractions and problems when the mission is so critical and in most cases life-threatening.
He’s afraid he’ll get the warm and tinglies by just the thought a gay man might be sizing him up. Odds are, he has nothing to worry about in any case since his apparent personality and probably physical appearance would be disconcerting anyway.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:42 amOh please. You must really be “high” on yourself if you think every woman and MAN wants your pathetic body, NOTSOProgressiveVet!
Homosexual men don’t want heterosexual men, you stupid fumb duck!
And even thinking that way shows how homophobic and uneducated you really are.
You really need to think beyond your sweaty “man on man love” scenario, and realize it’s not all about sex.
Mucking foron!
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:45 amAnd for the record, I’d be willing to shower with Parodyll!
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:46 amWere you in Gym in High School?
You showered with gay men.
Been to a Public Pool?
You’ve showered with openly gay men.
Have a problem with that?
Perhaps you don’t belong in the military… the Spartans certainly wouldn’t have had you.
If you can’t shower with those who would be willing to lay down their life for you ’cause you’re afraid they might see your pee-pee perhaps you are not taking the responsibility of military service seriously…
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:46 amI can see I have touched a nerve. I’m sorry you don’t empathize with me on my right to privacy, as it pertains to having homosexuals see me naked in the shower. It has nothing to do with the size of my “pee-pee” and everything to do with me feeling uncomfortable knowing that I am naked, sharing a small space with a person that may have an attraction to me sexually. The military does not need this unnecessary stress and I see no positive affect by having Gays serve openly. The DADT policy is working just fine and I see no reason to use the military environment as a place to shove your lifestyle down the throats of our men and women that are already faced with enough challenges. I’m here giving you my thoughts on a topic from a perspective of someone who actually served in the military, so spare me the personal attacks and insults, please. It only makes you as narrow-minded as the conservatives you so dearly hate.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 pm“Don’t ask, don’t tell” what Rep Tauscher is doing to carry water for the bankers!
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:12 pmProgressVet Says
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:30 am
Does the military allow men to shower with women? No, and it’s not because the men don’t want to, it’s because the women would most certainly object. Well, as a straight man, I would object to sharing a shower with a gay man.
___________________________________________________________
Hmmm…interesting double standard here. When you say “it’s not because the men don’t want to,” I’m assuming you include yourself in this group of men who don’t mind showering with women?
So lemme see if I got this right — you have no problem showering with straight women, but you object to showering with gay men. Apparently gay men are some sort of threat to you, whereas women aren’t. Why is that?
Is it because you kind of like the idea of showering with naked women because you’d be ogling them like mad? And therefore, you believe that gay men would be ogling you with equal frenzy? Ogling is OK, but being ogled isn’t?
First, get over yourself. Even if you were built like Michaelangelo’s David, it’s doubtful that other guys would be overcome with lust for you in a group shower setting.
Second, ask yourself why it’s more important to accommodate the delusional bigots in our military than the gays.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:14 pmRapture Darly Ready is bisexual & left to go on a GenderBender
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:14 pmProgressVet Says
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 pm
The DADT policy is working just fine…
_____________________________________________________________
How would you feel about the DADT policy if YOU were the one who had to keep your sexual orientation secret? What if you weren’t permitted to tell anybody you had a wife? or a girlfriend? What if you had to constantly change your pronouns when speaking to others just to give the illusion that your sexual orientation was something other than what it was? What if you had to keep all your dates a secret?
Personally, I think that for DADT to be fair, EVERYBODY should shut up about their sex lives. Imagine a military where gays not only have to hide the fact they’re gay, but straights have to hide the fact they’re straight. How easy would it be for you to do that?
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:20 pmPV sez: It has nothing to do with the size of my “pee-pee” and everything to do with me feeling uncomfortable knowing that I am naked, sharing a small space with a person that may have an attraction to me sexually
Here’s the thing… I’ve been an actor since I was a child. I’ve showered with openly gay men who admitted they were attracted to me… I’ve even kissed some on stage.
NEVER have I been pursued by one of them after making it clear that I was straight. NEVER. Often we are closer, but we are always professional.
If neither of you hides your sexuality it shouldn’t be a problem. Be a professional.
If you continually receive unwanted advances from someone in your company- that’s unprofessional and that person should be dealt with, man or woman- gay or straight.
Let’s not punish people because you feel icky knowing they’re gay… that’s your problem. Deal with that.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:22 pmDid you serve in a combat arms MOS in the U.S. Army? If not, then you really have no relevant basis to conclude that because it worked for you in acting it will work for everyone in the military. I am certain that gays in the military face great challenge in living a secret life, but I believe the alternative solution would cause much more harm overall to our military than what we have now. Why don’t they let the military themselves vote on it?
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:42 pm#37 – RaptureReady Says:
———————————————————-
“There is a reason why male and females are separated during boot-camp. You should not have to worry about being hit on within 12 weeks for lack of sexual interaction with others.”
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:19 am
Shows what Daryll knows. Men & women are not separated in boot-camp. Companies are desegregated, and go thorugh boot-camp together. When I had basic training, it was with men & women. Of course, they both had their own sleeping & washing facilities.
When I was in the Army, not one of my rommates cared that I was gay. Seems like the only people who arae afraid of gays openly serving are those who have problems with their own sexual orientations.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:43 pmDid you serve in a combat arms MOS in the U.S. Army?
No, but I’ve acted with gay men who did… He served in the Marines, actually.
If not, then you really have no relevant basis to conclude that because it worked for you in acting it will work for everyone in the military.
Did I say it would work for everyone? No, I said it will work for those who are willing to be professional, just like in the theater. And I said if that isn’t you, well then maybe you need a different career…
I am certain that gays in the military face great challenge in living a secret life, but I believe the alternative solution would cause much more harm overall to our military than what we have now.
So you recognize that your brothers in arms are facing unnecessary difficulty because of this policy but you are unwilling to change it ’cause you think that overall MOST people in the military are like you… what an awesome soldier you must be… No one gets left behind unless it inconveniences you, huh?
Why don’t they let the military themselves vote on it?
What happened to following your CIC’s orders?
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:52 pmBesides,
You may not have as much support in the military as you think…
RaptureReady Says:
No, no, no. This would be a conflict of personal interest. The last thing you want is another soldier hitting on you on liberty, during war. Their sole purpose is to win military missions. If you do not inform anybody about your sexuality, you will be alright.
As someone who has “informed” us about your sexual identity (and you are definitely not “alright”), how much of your day do you spend hitting on women? Why do you assume that gay men or lesbians would do more hitting on people than you? And have you ever had a gay man hit on you? I have. I said “not interested” and that was the end. What’s the big deal?
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:00 pmDid you serve in a combat arms MOS in the U.S. Army?
BTW PV, I’ve also acted with a gay woman who served in the U.S. Army… she had to not only kiss me but pretend to perform fellatio on me while basically topless… we were friends and she was certainly my type physically but I felt no desire to pursue her when she made it clear that my affections would not be returned… why do you think that the men you serve with would behave any less professionally?
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:16 pmCaleb,
I’m just not willing to try what amounts to a social experiment to satisfy a small minority serving in the military under the current policy at the expense of the vast majority. I have no doubt that Gays perform just as well as straights in their MOS duties, but it’s not worth the risk to introduce a social factor that will require the majority of our military to address, in one way or another. I want our military force to be the best fighting force in the world and anything that could negatively affect their ability to perform the mission should be avoided. If the military voted for the removal of the DADT policy and allow gays to serve openly, then I would the first to admit that I was completely wrong in my assumption that this would have too much of a negative impact.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:46 pmPV,
Derw3rd?
Is that you?
BTW, I’m just not willing to try what amounts to a social experiment to satisfy a small minority serving in the military under the current policy at the expense of the vast majority. I have no doubt that Gays perform just as well as straights in their MOS duties, but it’s not worth the risk to introduce a social factor that will require the majority of our military to address, in one way or another.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:50 pmIsn’t that what they said about desegregating the military?
I want our military force to be the best fighting force in the world and anything that could negatively affect their ability to perform the mission should be avoided.
Like firing a bunch of your Arabic translators at the Pentagon just ’cause they’re gay right before launching a major operation in the Middle East?
That kind of negative impact on missions?
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:57 pmIf the military voted for the removal of the DADT policy and allow gays to serve openly, then I would the first to admit that I was completely wrong in my assumption that this would have too much of a negative impact.
What if the CIC ordered it and nothing terrible happened?
Would you admit it then, ’cause that’s whats gonna happen.
Also, Caleb??? Are we friends now?
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:58 pmHere’s a link to illustrate how ‘mission critical’ DADT has been:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6824206
Jeebuz…
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:00 pmPV?
…
drew3rd??
…
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:19 pm#74 – ProgressVet Says:
———————————————————–
“I’m just not willing to try what amounts to a social experiment to satisfy a small minority serving in the military under the current policy at the expense of the vast majority. I have no doubt that Gays perform just as well as straights in their MOS duties, but it’s not worth the risk to introduce a social factor that will require the majority of our military to address, in one way or another. I want our military force to be the best fighting force in the world and anything that could negatively affect their ability to perform the mission should be avoided. If the military voted for the removal of the DADT policy and allow gays to serve openly, then I would the first to admit that I was completely wrong in my assumption that this would have too much of a negative impact.”
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Sounds like an argument used to support the segregation of black and white service members in the military, before they were forced to de-segregate based on an order by the President. Sometimes, it takes outsiders to see the benefits of policies that insiders are incapable of seeing.
Seems to me that the arguments used to support denying equal rights to Americans who are ready, willing and able to serve in the military have no place in our country. I hope and pray that America decides to join the vast majority of NATO countries, and eliminates this obviously discriminatory policy.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:24 pmIf the CIC ordered it and nothing happened, then I would have to admit that I was wrong, obviously. All I’m doing is giving my personal opinion on how I think the change in policy would affect our military, using my personal experience as a veteran as support for my opinion. I respect your opinion, but I disagree that the military is ready. We are fighting 2 wars at the moment, so maybe this experiment would be better served during a different time.
As far as the linguists that were discharged, it’s disappointing to me that people joined the military with a clear understanding of the DADT policy, yet chose to violate the policy after taxpayers spent millions of dollars for their training, especially considering they were trained in such a critical MOS.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:26 pmWe are fighting 2 wars at the moment,
Exactly why the military needs all hands on deck.
What about you? Would you be able to serve as long as you never revealed that you were straight? Seems to me that would be only fair… no mention of sexuality in the military at all. You seem to have a clear understanding of Don’t ask, Don’t tell, after all… shouldn’t you abide by it?
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:33 pmThe problem as I see it, PV, is this.
There are many homosexuals who want to serve… the military needs as many volunteers as it can get… why should people who want to serve and will serve professionally and honorably be turned away because you don’t like who they sleep with?
If any of them fail to serve professionally and honorably we already have a methods for dealing with that… we don’t need a special policy for homosexuals.
It’s inherently unfair and un-American… that’s all I’m sayin’
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:45 pmExactly why the military needs all hands on deck.
What about you? Would you be able to serve as long as you never revealed that you were straight? Seems to me that would be only fair… no mention of sexuality in the military at all. You seem to have a clear understanding of Don’t ask, Don’t tell, after all… shouldn’t you abide by it?
I could serve under any conditions I believe, but I don’t have as much faith in the rest of my fellow soldiers. Despite what many of you may have concluded about me, if the military was full of nothing but people that think the way I do, then this policy could be removed without any problem whatsoever. Of course, I would prefer separate showers, unless I could be given the choice to shower with the women. =)
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:46 pmI don’t have as much faith in the rest of my fellow soldiers.
Apparently not… I have faith they’ll adjust, they’re competent professionals for the most part, or at least they aspire to be…
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:49 pmOf course, I would prefer separate showers, unless I could be given the choice to shower with the women. =)
Of course, you realize the the women are soldiers as well and deserve to be treated with the same respect and dignity you’d expect from your gay comrades, right?
‘Respect’ and ‘professionalism’ are two-way streets… but you knew that. ;)
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:52 pmApparently not… I have faith they’ll adjust, they’re competent professionals for the most part, or at least they aspire to be…
You need to realize that the majority of our force is lower level enlisted soldiers; kids just out of high school and usually from lower income and/or minority families. Not exactly the optimal target demographic for this type of social adjustment when faced with the great challenge of fighting a war.
I still don’t follow you on the shower point though. Why shouldn’t I be indifferent to gays showering with me? Why isn’t it acceptable for women to allow me to shower with them? I promise I’ll remain professional…
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:06 pmWhy isn’t it acceptable for women to allow me to shower with them? I promise I’ll remain professional…
In the future I bet women and men will shower together in combat units… and the lower level enlisted soldiers will follow orders.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:16 pmThey are the same kids who ‘wouldn’t’ understand the ’social adjustment’ of desegregation… everyone was just fine.
I heard the same arguments against having women in the military. In fact, a female friend and I—both ridiculously heterosexual—were frozen out at one point because someone started the rumor that we were lesbians. I remember standing in the center of operations screaming, “Why isn’t anybody talking to us!” Everyone literally turned their backs on us for six weeks. Then I got caught with a Dutch soldier in my room, and men started making strange propositions to me and my friend. In their infinite wisdom, they decided we were bisexual and game for threesomes. The woman who started that rumor saw me with a book about the history of feminism.
The military has a long way to go with women and gays. It needs strong leadership to push it in the right direction.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:36 pm